Students' perceptions of using mobile technology in higher education

(1)

Felix Ansu Boakye

STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF USING MOBILE TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Master’s Thesis Media Education Autumn 2016

Faculty of Education

(2)

2 ABSTRACT

This study explored the perceptions of university students in the educational use of mobile technology.

International degree and exchange students from the University of Lapland, Finland, were the main focus.

Research questions were: 1. What is the rate of educational use of mobile technology by higher education students? 2. What is the rate of mobile technology use in promoting university students’ learning? and 3. What is the amount of hindrance in the educational use of mobile technology by university students?

The study described the Teaching and Meaningful Learning (TML) and the Enhanced Teaching and Meaningful e-Learning (ETMeL) models based on Ausubel’s Theory of Cognitive Learning which explains the importance of meaningful learning process as being dependent on the abilities of learners to relate new concepts and propositions to what they already know. The models and the theory were used to investigate the research questions.In the study, I attempt to do an analysis of a survey done with the international degree and exchange students on the use of mobile technology (i.e., smartphone, laptop and tablet computers). This is to find out how the models have provided awareness into how mobile technology can be utilized in a pedagogically meaningful way in teaching, studying, and learning processes and to reflect on how some of these popular practices could be supported to enhance learning among the student community. Based on 120 survey responses, numeric data was used to gather all the relevant variables where the results of the study were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. In the final results, it was observed that the use of mobile technology for learning purposes has been widely adopted by students. Ownership and access to mobile computing devices was high among the respondents and through various synchronous and asynchronous online platforms, learning among students has been promoted. The study therefore concludes that the use of mobile technology has improved pedagogical possibilities among higher education students.

Keywords: Higher education, meaningful learning, perceptions, mobile learning, mobile technology

I give permission the Master’s thesis to be read in the Library X

I give permission the Master’s thesis to be read in the Provincial Library of Lapland (only those concerning Lapland) X

(3)

3

DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to my lovely and beloved wife, Josephine Ansu Boakye (née, Josephine Okyere) and my most cherished kids, Kwasi, Heidi, and Manny. It is their unconditional love and well intent that spur me on to set higher goals. Thank you for always supporting me.

Rovaniemi, Autumn 2016

Felix Ansu Boakye

(4)

4

At the higher education level where the patronization of mobile technology in the teaching and learning process is ubiquitous, most students and academics seem to embrace it as a routine in the advancement of making information known, including other various purposes. Nowadays, a lot of iPhones, iPads, and other identical smart devices are equipped with many functionalities and special features that can be used for delivering learning content. As it is asserted, “Most devices are now capable of processing information in the same way as desktop computers” (Khaddage & Latteman, 2013, p. 119). It comes as no surprise therefore to be fully aware that technology experts and major stakeholders have shown considerable interests in the application of mobile technology, not only for the teaching and learning process, but also in several other workplaces. Significant projects in all these areas have revealed how mobile technology is capable of transforming and empowering individuals, promoting change, and fostering the development of 21^st century skills (Oblinger &

Oblinger, 2005). Taking education into account, lots of research have shown how mobile technology can offer new opportunities that can transform teaching and learning processes from being highly teacher-dominated, to student/learner-centred. Many experts are also of the view that this transformation will result in increased learning gains for students, thereby creating and allowing opportunities for learners to develop their creativity, problem-solving skills, and other higher-order thinking skills (Bullen & Morgan, 2009).

In the light of higher education, majority of university students nowadays belong to the Generation Y (also called millennial generation). This is a generation of people typically perceived as steadily more familiar with digital and electronic technology. For this reason, mobile technology is now an integral ritual in their lives. Certainly, we are living in an age of “personal and technical mobility”

where mobile devices, together with mobile phones, MP3 players, and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), “are carried everywhere” (Sharples, Arnedillo-Sanchez, Milrad, & Vavoula, 2009, p. 234).

(7)

7

Thus, people have the opportunity to construct their world of learning. For example, as a way of designing learning differently, people could be linked through real and virtual worlds. Also, learning communities could be created between and amongst “people on the move”, “providing expertise on demand”, and generally “supporting a lifetime of learning” (Sharples et al., 2009, p. 234).

Adkins (2008) adds that the tipping point for the m-learning industry has probably been reached.

Presently, m-learning is by and large used in museums, workplaces, and classrooms for learners inside or outside the formal education systems, such as dropouts and the unemployed, enabling a wide spectrum of educational possibilities (Attewel, 2005). This wide spectrum of educational possibilities has been reiterated by the contention that “Mobile learning offers new ways to extend education outside the classroom, into the conversations and interactions of everyday life” (Sharples et al., 2009, p. 237).

M-learning or mobile learning can be defined as “the acquisition of any knowledge and skills through the use of mobile technology, anywhere, and anytime” (Hashemi, Azizinezhad, Najafi, & Nesari, 2011, p. 1). Consequently, this recent phenomenon that is rapidly spreading in many regions of the world is ushering humankind into a new era of training and education. Indeed, many researchers and other scholars believe that the benefits that m-learning offers are credibly immeasurable. For instance, for most companies, mobile learning helps to reduce the traditional training infrastructure, facilitates the learning process of employees, and improves their productivity and effectiveness whilst on the move (Grohmann, Hofer, & Martin, 2005; Donnelly, 2009). Similarly, on campus, mobile learning provides a useful mechanism to enrich students’ learning experience (Naismith, Peter, Giasemi, &

Sharples, 2004). With respect to education, Sharma and Kitchens (2004) are of the view that collaboration and informal interaction between peer students are facilitated by m-learning. Further to that, Sharma and Kitchens (2004) argue that the advent and subsequent development of mobile learning indicate a profound evolution from distance learning (d-learning) to electronic learning (e- learning), and then on to m-learning.

According to Lavin, Moreno, and Fernandez (2008), mobile learning is enabled by integrating various hardware and software technologies into multimedia applications, facilitating the communication of educational content in a number of different formats for university students. In addition, Gikas and Grant (2013), cite a survey conducted by the Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR) (2012), which suggests that students are driving the adoption of mobile computing

(8)

8

devices, such as cellphones, smartphones, and tablet computers, in higher education, and 67% of surveyed students believe mobile devices are meaningful to their academic success and use their devices for academic activities. It can be said then that these mobile communication devices offer university students the opportunity to carry their university in their own hands (Taleb & Sohrabi, 2012).

A vivid clarification of what mobile computing devices constitute, have Valk, Rashid, and Elder (2010) opine that mobile computing devices have included technologies that are transportable, such as cellphones, and smartphones, and this may include tablet computers, and netbooks. On the other hand, it is stressed by Keegan (2005), that mobile learning should focus on the actual mobility of the device. That is, mobile learning should be “restricted to learning on devices which a lady can carry in her handbag or a gentleman can carry in his pocket” (Keegan, 2005, p. 33).

Fundamentally, the use of mobile technology in higher education learning should offer the opportunity of students being able to access information and knowledge at any spot and at any point of time from the devices that they (the students) are accustomed to “carrying everywhere with them”, which they also “regard as friendly and personal” (Traxler, 2007, p. 129).

It must also be emphasized that despite the new opportunities that mobile technology presents in empowering individuals, transforming the teaching and learning processes, as well as fostering the development of skills in the new millennium, there is no gainsaying the fact that mobile learning is fraught with some major challenges. For instance, it is worthy of note that since students have different interfaces, and perhaps, different technologies, not all higher institutions may be ready to formally accept and integrate mobile apps for teaching and learning.

Another considerable element of the challenges is that, even higher education institutions that are bent on adopting new technologies may be seriously constrained by not having enough of the necessary human resources as well as the financial capital to achieve their ideas. In addition, it has been observed that some new technologies are located within structures that simply were not designed to provide the ideal technology required, hence the wrongful adoption has failed to achieve projected benefits and cost savings because of shortcomings in the safe and effective use of these systems.

Generally, frequent technological challenges can also inhibit the positive potential that mobile ICTs offer (Cutshall, Changchit, & Elwood, 2006).

(9)

9

Moreover, since we live in a world in which information is available everywhere, it is significant that the credibility of the information and its source are authentic since Johnson, Adams, and Cummins (2012) note that the university is seen to be “the golden standard for educational credentialing” (p.

5). In spite of this fact, certification programmes from other sources seem to be eroding the value of this purpose. For instance, poor system design and improper use of the programmes and other operating information used by a particular device can cause errors that can jeopardize the integrity of the information in the system (Johnson, et al., 2012).

One other challenge is the rapid development of digital technologies, especially, the mobile devices.

Mobile phones that are being used currently, almost now and then, have their updated versions being manufactured, thus rendering the ones being used as aged. Certainly, this trend may make designing content specifically for some type of mobile tools seem expensive and too time-consuming when compared to the time that the content is functional on the devices. Also, some compelling issues in relation to social codes of acceptable use of mobile technologies have been raised. For instance, Whittlestone, Bullock, Pirkelbauer, and May (2008) reveal that some veterinary students felt it was not suitable to use their handheld devices during surgery and in the presence of clients and were afraid that observers or onlookers could perceive that the students were using their devices for some inappropriate purposes such as playing games or texting.

Furthermore, there has been the consideration of one vital element that seems to inhibit mobile learning. This has to do with the diverse issues of how handy and easy to manipulate these mobile devices are. According to Wang, Wu, and Wang (2009), mobile learning is fraught with several challenges such as connectivity, limited processing power and reduced input capabilities. The authors pointed out that “these (technological) challenges mean that adapting existing e-learning services to m-learning is not an easy work” (Wang et al., 2009, p. 93). In similar vein, Attewel (2005), attests to these challenges when he drums the point that impediments of using mobile phone in the university are: “small size, limited screen resolution and complicated input mechanism of mobile phone” (Taleb

& Sohrabi, 2012, p. 1107).

Drawing from a review in the United Kingdom about present-day usability studies and two projects on m-learning, Kukulska-Hulme (2007) adds that usability issues are often reported since m-learning activity continues to take place on devices which are not designed for educational use. In my opinion, I think stakeholders of technology ought to take a critical look into the easy handling and use of

(10)

10

mobile devices and apps. By improving on them, I believe students would be more than willing to use m-learning. In support of this opinion, researchers are exploring new tools and methods for the collection and analysis of data, research methodologies and approaches suitable for interpreting such data, and issues in designing mobile learning research (Vavoula, Kukulska-Hulme, & Pachler, 2007).

1.2 Mobility

Aside from the aforementioned points of view enumerated, Sharples, et al. (2009) consider what actually constitutes ‘mobile’ in mobile learning. To these authors, 5 aspects of what mobility means have been identified — namely, mobility in physical space, mobility of technology, mobility in conceptual space, mobility in social space, and learning dispersed over time (Sharples, et al., 2009).

First of all, one realizes that people on the move that endeavour to learn with the use of mobile technology devices, need not be actually present in the formalized learning situation within the institutional settings. One distinctive feature of mobile learning is that it enables learners to enter an information network at the right moment when necessary, with the use of a portable learning device and a wireless network (Seppälä & Alamäki, 2003). As a result, the supposedly physical places where these learners find themselves may become part of the learning process which has been enabled by the portability of the technology. It also happens to be by way of the mobile device which they possess. The distance between the actual classroom setting and people on the move has therefore created a ‘space’ or a ‘gap’ which they can take advantage of, to “reflect on what life has taught them” (Sharples, et al., 2009, p. 235).

The authors’ point on this aspect of mobility in physical space is again supported by the statement that “Mobile learning offers new ways to extend education outside the classroom” (Sharples, et al., 2009, p. 237). Furthermore, an axiom by Shepherd (2001), ‘M-learning is not just electronic, it’s mobile’ (Seppälä & Alamäki, 2003, p. 330), gives more support to the fact that another distinctive feature of mobile learning is the opportunity for students to break away from the usual instructional activities that take place in the classroom. By detaching themselves from the norm, students can move to another location while communicating via information networks. Indeed, this is an indication that mobile learning may be considered as an extreme form of flexible learning. The notion is that this has become feasible because the mobile environment integrates studies that go on on campus, at

(11)

11

home or outside university facilities into one shared, flexible learning environment (Seppälä &

Alämäki, 2003).

According to Quinn (2000), ‘Mobile learning is learning through mobile computational devices’.

With the second constituent, mobility of technology, the opinion is that educators find it challenging to implement technology in ways that enhance student learning in m-learning environments (Sølyberg & Rismark, 2009). However, it must be acknowledged that several teachers and researchers have experimented with mobile technology in teaching and learning. Besides the fact that they may want to develop the production of digital learning materials, it also happens that the purpose behind the investigations may be to develop models of how to teach, study and learn in mobile learning environments. It can barely be gainsaid that mobile wireless phones, such as Smartphones, which consist of a combination of a mobile phone and computers, are considered the most popular mobile wireless technology that are used mainly as personal communication tool (Kim, Mims, &

Holmes, 2006). A gripping statistical information on Finland revealed that with a population of 5 million inhabitants, over 70% own mobile phones, and approximately 98% of university students have a mobile phone which then can be assumed that they are “highly experienced users of mobile technology” (Seppälä & Alämäki, 2003, p. 331).

Apart from that, text messaging, also called SMS, may be one of the most common wireless applications that are used with mobile wireless phones to support teaching and learning since it can be sent from a mobile phone to a computer, or from similar mobile devices that have the SMS application. As described by Yengin, Karahoca, Karahoca, and Uzunboylu (2011), SMS is “a two- way technology that allows communication in two ways between teacher to student, students to students and teacher to teacher” (p. 1440). In another dimension, considering text messaging as an idea of mobility of technology, it is highlighted that with SMS, “professors and students can send and receive text messages to and from most modern mobile wireless phones” (Kim, et al., 2006, p.

85). Again, Seppälä and Alämäki (2003), cite a pilot study in teacher education (Uniwap II) where teachers and students could discuss teaching issues through mobile devices and also use SMS- messages and digital pictures as a part of the supervising process. It is therefore interesting to realize that with the increasing trend of higher education adopting and exploiting mobile wireless technology, these devices have indeed become prevalent.

(12)

12

More often than not, the mobility of digital technologies creates fascinating opportunities for new forms of learning. For this reason, these digital technologies change the nature of the physical relations between teachers, students, and the objects of learning. In discussing the aspect, mobility in conceptual space, this has different learning topics and themes competing for an individual’s shift of focus. In this situation, numerous episodes about learning are brought to the attention of the individual, so the focus moves from one conceptual topic to another. It must also be added that this shift of focus occurs as a result of the individual being driven by “personal interest, curiosity or commitment” (Sharples, et al., 2009, p. 235). Aside from that, potential learning occurs irrespective of location. It has severally been observed that learning occurs wherever a learner is, thereby not being restricted to the classroom setting per se.

Taking into account mobility in social space, the idea of ‘mobility’ needs to be re-examined. By inference, it is one that signifies an individual’s body movement in a landmarked space and between locations. According to Green (2002), shifting popular cultural notions of geographical spaces (which includes the spaces “in between” while moving) are undoubtedly evident in the case of mobile telecommunications. For instance, a group of students organizing themselves to attend an ice hockey game via mobile phone while in the lecture hall, emphasizes the fact that mobile devices can be used as tools to engage simultaneously in work and leisure relationships despite distance or location. It has also been affirmed that mobile technologies are sold on the basis that they provide “anytime, anywhere” connection, whether that connection is by means of voice or (increasingly) data connectivity (Green & Harvey, 1999).

From the point of view of mobility as other forms of educational activity, some aspects of informal and formal learning are significantly seen as mobile. For example, students within a college can move from lecture halls to lecture halls and even shift from topic to topic which highlights that the various learning experiences of people create an accumulation of a learning experience, and this learning experience involves connections and reinforcement (Dierking, Falk, Rennie, Anderson, &

Ellenbogen, 2003). In the discussion of learning being dispersed over time, also indicates a better understanding of not only how knowledge and skills can be transferred across contexts such as home and school, but also how learning can be managed across life transitions, as well as how new technologies can be designed to support “a society in which people on the move increasingly try to cram learning into the interstices of daily life” (Sharples, Taylor, & Vavuola, 2005, p. 2).

(13)

13

By reason of mobility being one of the distinct aspects of mobile learning, and also appreciating the learning that takes place outside lecture halls as people initiate and organize their activities to facilitate educational undertaking and outcomes, it is crucial to avail with the possible sets of circumstances before us, to design new technology that supports learning during “the growing amounts of time that people spend travelling” (Sharples, Taylor, & Vavuola, 2005, p. 3).

1.3 The Aims and Outline of the Research

In this thesis, I aimed to investigate present-day students’ perceptions of using mobile technology in higher education learning. The motivation for this study was drawn from the aspect of international degree and exchange students’ experiences of mobile technology use in a certain university in Finland.

As a foreign student myself, and by way of some relative experience with ICTs in learning, it had become apparent to me that some higher institutions were more noted for their excellence in the use of mobile technology than others. Therefore, as non-national students coming from various universities, it would not only be useful and informative, but also interesting to fathom students’ perceptions of the use of mobile technology in their studies. The quest for this investigation is also supported by the comments of Cheon, Lee, Crooks, and Song (2012), who indicated that:

“The availability of mobile devices does not guarantee their use in education so, the need to first assess students’ readiness for mobile learning is significant” (p. 1054).

In this study, I applied the pedagogical model for Teaching and Meaningful Learning (TML) (Hakkarainen, 2009) with the model of Enhanced Teaching and Meaningful e-Learning (ETMeL) (Ruokamo, Hakkarainen, & Eriksson, 2012). These models are based on the theory of cognitive learning (Ausubel, 1963 / 1968; Ausubel, Novak, & Haneasian, 1978) and the ideas of meaningful learning (Jonnasen, 1995). In Ausubel et al.’s (1978) cognitive learning theory, the authors demonstrate the significance of meaningful learning process as being dependent on the abilities of learners to relate new concepts and propositions to what they already know. In the same way, a meaningful learning process should depend on how important it is for university students to relate their knowledge of the use of ICTs, with new mobile apps in their studies. The models also have features of expected learning outcomes with some pedagogical approaches like case-based teaching which focuses on teachers’ problem solving,

(14)

14

decision making, reflective practices, and their own personalized theory about teaching and learning (Butler, Lee, & Tippins, 2006).

Furthermore, with the advancements in mobile technology which are rapidly expanding the scope of learning in areas outside of formal education, accompanied by the expansion of flexible and instant access to rich digital resources, mobile learning can significantly offer an additional role within formal education. This additional role may involve some form of reduction in students’ expenses. For example, since not all the students in the higher education level may be living on the university campus, the cost of saving some money on transportation, probably due to staying farther away from the university may be worthwhile. This may also be due to the fact that lessons that needed to be taught in the university classroom or lecture hall, could now be done with the mobile devices that the students own by means of mobile technology. In such instances it can be assumed that students have been offered new learning opportunities that have been provided by the mobile technology. A research conducted by Cheon, et al.

(2012), investigating mobile learning readiness in higher education indicated that “empowering students with confidence in using m-learning would lead to a greater likelihood of m-learning adoption” (p. 1061).

Hence, the more some courses are offered online, the more students become confident with the use of mobile technology in the teaching-studying-learning processes.

The thesis involved some descriptive studies where the researcher interacted with some of the participants. A paper-based survey was also conducted to collect the necessary information from the respondents, being international degree and exchange students from the said university. By design, I have structured my thesis into five chapters which are followed by a list of activities in supplement of the research work. Following the introduction, the thesis continues with a discussion on m-learning. After this, a description of the TML and ETMeL models from the theoretical approach of cognitive learning and the ideas of meaningful learning is provided. The thesis then presents the research questions and reports on the data collection and analysis procedures. The results are discussed with relationship to contemporary considerations on mobile learning. Finally, general conclusions are drawn with a summary of the whole study.

(15)

15 1.4 Research Questions and Purpose

The main focus of this research is to explore present-day students’ perceptions of using mobile technology in higher education learning.

In the study, I identified three mobile computing devices as the significant pedagogical tools used by the university students in the teaching-studying-learning processes. To be specific, the digital devices are:

laptop, smartphone and tablet computers. The study answers the following research questions:

1. What is the rate of educational use of mobile technology by higher education students?

2. What is the rate of mobile technology use in promoting university students’ learning? and 3. What is the amount of hindrance in the educational use of mobile technology by university

students?

Nowadays, technology is advancing at a pace that can fairly be described as breakneck when viewed across the length and breadth of the world. New electronic media and digital devices, coupled with their multipurpose applications add new meaning to mobile learning. Many governments have also invested so much in promoting and facilitating the use of information and learning technologies to support and enhance teaching and learning. This is to give learners of all ages e-learning of the highest calibre to support their lives, extend their choices, enrich their competences and strengthen their autonomy at home, work and in the community (Attewel & Savil-Smith, 2004). E-Learning is the use of telecommunication technology to deliver information for education and training (Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen, & Yeh, 2008). In these contemporary era, e-Learning mainly takes the form of online courses (Downes, 2005). For these reasons, m-learning is part of e-Learning (Georgiev & Smrikarov, 2004). As Garrison (2011) posits, “E- learning cannot be ignored by those who are seriously committed to enhancing teaching and learning”

(p. 4).

In addition to technology changing the way teachers and their students learn, there also happens to be a considerable change in the way they communicate. It is important therefore to understand how learners use technology for communication and information, and perhaps, the motivation behind, so that their wired world can be tapped into to help them become better and more independent learners (Daniel, 1996).

The belief is also that successful e-learning depends on the self-motivation to learn. As Bates (1997) claims, there are four reasons for using technology in higher education. The reasons are the following:

(16)

16

a) to improve the quality of learning, b) to improve access to education and training, c) to reduce the cost of education, and d) to improve the cost-effectiveness of education. According to Attewel and Savil- Smith (2004), “Advances in technologies inevitably bring with them additional opportunities to facilitate and enrich the experiences of individual learners” (p. 8).

Moreover, two significant developments in technology have made a huge impact on learning. The first is the exponential expansion of the internet as a source of information and a means of communication (Parker & Plank, 2000). For instance, information obtained from the internet is “abundant, easily available, and often comprehensive” (Flanagin & Metzger, 2000, p. 517). Thus, there is a growing recognition of how the internet is stimulating connections and even forging new links at all levels of organization (Haythornthwaite, 2005). Touching on the second crucial development is the increasingly affordable use of technology, especially the decreasing cost of both using data and the mobile devices that consume the data. These critical developments in the area of education mean that technology will be an integral part of the teaching and learning process (Berge & Collins, 1995). What’s more, since the use of technology for communication is authentic, both teachers and students are obligated to continually upgrade themselves to keep up the pace with the development of technology in order to embrace it as our ally (Mellow, 2005).

Considering e-learning widely regarded as mainstream and a service offered by most colleges and universities, many intellectuals have argued that there is basis for belief that wireless portable technology, for example, tablets and smartphones, will have a significant role to play in the way students learn (Patten, Sanchez & Tangney, 2006). Again, learning with media has customarily been deliberated as a cognitive activity (Mayer, 2002). However, there is also an emerging admission that learners come to the learning platform with pre-existing intuitions (Clark, 2001; Reiser & Dempsey, 2007). Thus, to a large extent, it is being appreciated that in addition to cognitive knowledge (such as facts and concepts) and skills (like procedures and strategies), learners’ beliefs and feelings about the instructional medium should be considered by instructional designers (Sung & Mayer, 2012).

Finally, since it is instructional methods that produce learning (Clark, 2001), it will be ill-suited to view mobile devices simply as delivery systems in which information is transferred from teacher to learner (Mayer, 2002, 2003). Rather, the instructional value of educational technology hinges on how it is used to provide assistance to learners to engage in cognitive processing during learning and meaningful learning outcomes (e.g., as described by Hakkarainen, et al., 2007). For this purpose, my interest in this

(17)

17

study lies within how university students think of mobile computing devices as pedagogical tools (i.e., devices that one can use to learn or teach) since such opinions could influence how they engage in mobile learning.

(18)

18

2 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF MOBILE LEARNING

Contemporary trends in communication and wireless technologies have resulted in the proliferation of mobile devices. For instance, cell phones and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). In addition, scientific investigations have equally offered significant insights into mobile learning despite the issue being a relatively new phenomenon with its theoretical premise yet to become extensive. Further, instructional designers have been given the needed support to consider the role that mobile devices, as instructional materials, play in how learners (students) go about the process of learning. This encouragement has been necessitated by the rationale of thought that students’ attempt to learn, may be associated with their skills and experiences of becoming proficient with the use of various forms of mobile technology.

In this study, I will briefly present the theoretical approach and the models used in mobile learning at the higher education level. My main subject of discussion brings to focus, Ausubel’s Theory of Cognitive Learning which is used as the theoretical framework which offers a lens for investigating how information is absorbed, processed, and retained during learning in the university setting. Emphasis will be placed on how students integrate new knowledge with what they have already learned or what they already know. Thus, the Theory of Cognitive Learning by Ausubel (1968); Ausubel, Novak, and Hanesian (1978) is aimed at analysing how students perceive or become conscious of the use of laptop, smartphone and tablet computers in teaching-studying-learning processes. The Teaching and Meaningful Learning (TML) and the Enhanced Teaching and Meaningful e-Learning (ETMeL) models expatiate on students’ learning processes and their learning outcomes with pedagogical possibilities afforded by the three mobile computing devices. Invariably, the models discuss the rate of educational use of mobile technology by university students, how students’ use of mobile computing devices has promoted their learning, as well as the amount of hindrance that is associated with the use of mobile technology in higher education learning.

Last but not least, it is the hope that learners may bring their intuitive beliefs and experiences about mobile technology in relation to new concepts to attain the desired objectives of meaningful learning, for it is quite reinvigorating to learn that in recent times, a number of studies have been endeavoured by researchers (e.g., Karppinen, 2005; Rendas et al., 2006; Rick & Weber, 2010) to apply information technologies to support the achievement of meaningful learning through mobile learning (Huang, Chiu, Liu, & Chen, 2011).

(19)

19 2.1 Theory of Cognitive Learning

One of the most prominent results of recent research in cognitive psychology is taking cognizance of the claim that ‘old’ knowledge plays a fundamental role in the acquisition of ‘new’ knowledge (Pieters, Breueur, & Simons, 2012). The theory of cognitive learning (Ausubel, 1963, 1968; Ausubel, Novak, &

Hanesian, 1978) is analysed from the aspect of educational psychology where the centre of interest is on how students learn. The theory is based on the ideas that learners learn through meaningful learning, and not through rote memorization. In the theory, Ausubel contends that meaningful learning is accomplished by prior knowledge. That is, any new learning must, in some fashion, connect with what learners already know (Shulman, 199). Students’ prior knowledge provides proof of both the alternative and technological conceptions that learners possess. Because of this, students’ learning is basically affected by their existing knowledge prior to instruction (Hewson & Hewson, 1983).

In Ausubel et al.’s (1978) cognitive learning theory, they demonstrate the importance of meaningful learning process as being dependent on the abilities of learners to relate new concepts to what they (the learners) are familiar with or are already used to. The theory also states that the most important factor influencing learning is the quantity, clarity and organization of the learner’s present knowledge. This present knowledge consists of facts, concepts, theories, and propositions that the learner has the right or opportunity to use or benefit from. As a matter of fact, present knowledge comprises the learner’s cognitive structure (Ausubel, 1968). Further supported, the quantity and quality of the knowledge structures that learners build, will determine their ability to transfer this knowledge for use in new contexts (Alexapolou & Driver, 1996; Basconas & Novak, 1985). Consequently, the theory explains that the construction of new meanings requires that learners attempt to achieve the integration of new knowledge with existing relevant concepts and propositions in their cognitive structure. These propositions are seen as essential elements in representing meanings. In addition, being the basic mental process that learners use to make sense of information, the cognitive structure is greatly determined by how much effort is made to seek this integration (Novak, 2002).

In the context of higher education learning, familiarity with some technological devices in pedagogy and student learning allows students to apply their computer and technological skills in not only problem- solving cases but also in the teaching-studying-learning processes (Cradler, McNabb, Freeman, &

(20)

20

Burchett, 2002). Again, since students are used to exploiting the technological resources in and around the university, they are capable of being motivated and having the confidence in the utilization of these technology (e.g., computers) to enhance and support new instructions such that their experiences of using technological devices to improve their learning at the higher education level can be ascertained. Also, the integration of new knowledge with students’ current knowledge of mobile devices, can help them to explore more, especially when new learning opportunities are provided them (Cole, 2009).

Besides, meaningful learning gives prominence to the acquisition of new information by learners and their connections to previous experiences and knowledge in the formation of personal and unique understandings (Rendas, Fonseca, & Pinto, 2006; Viola, Giretti, & Leo, 2007). It is the belief of the researcher that every university student concerned in this research owns at least one of the mobile technology mentioned in the study. That being so, having the particular device or devices in their possession anytime, anywhere, spot on, creates a familiar bond in such a way that incorporating new knowledge in connection with their course work ensures the achievement of a meaningful learning process. As suggested, when learning materials are well organised with new ideas and concepts that are potentially meaningful to the learner, anchoring new concepts into the learner’s already existing cognitive structure will make the new concept recallable. In other words, the theory explains that before new materials can be presented effectively, the student’s cognitive structure (i.e., the area that is prepared to accept new or altered ideas) should be strengthened, and when this is carried out, acquisition and retention of new information is facilitated (Ausubel, 1968). On this account, the expectation of students’

knowledge of laptop, smartphone and tablet computers for learning new things and solving studying- related problems can make learners recollect the experiences they used with the devices to understand the new concept taught them.

As a re-echo, the goal of formal education should be meaningful learning (Jonassen & Strobel, 2006).

In suggestion of the theme of his theory, Ausbel (1968) wrote a famous quotation in the preface of his work, ‘Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View’:

“If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly” (Dochy, 1994, p. 339).

(21)

21 The aforestated involves a tripartite assumption:

- that prior knowledge is an important variable in educational psychology;

- that the degree (content and degree of organization) of prior knowledge of a student must be explicit or measurable for the achievement of optimal learning; and

- a learning situation is optimal to the degree to which it accords with the level of prior knowledge (Lodewijks, 1983; Pieters, et al., 2012).

These suppositions point to the idea that students with prior experience of mobile technology in a particular learning situation will be able to perceive their situation in relation to their prior experiences, thereby adopting a certain approach to learning. For instance, in participating in synchronous discussions via applications based on written communication like Facebook and Skype chats, students may become conscious of the advantages these synchronous discussions may have in the promotion of their learning.

On the other hand, students may also recognize that working asynchronously with their colleagues on a common written document such as wikis and Google Docs may have promoted their learning. Therefore, all aspects of this situation will be part of the learner’s awareness at all times (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999).

Not all, as a fundamental principle for instructors, teachers must take seriously what their students have already learned. As a caution, to take learning seriously, teachers need to take learners seriously (Shulman, 1999).

In addition, any pedagogically significant use of technology should enable learners to engage in meaningful learning (Jonassen, 1995). In this instance, since university students own mobile devices mentioned in this study, it can be said that they are familiar with the mobile devices and are therefore able to manipulate them to their benefits; hence their ability to operate these devices indicates their prior knowledge of mobile technology in higher education learning. The caution though is that access alone does not guarantee that a particular programme will be successful (Shapely, Sheehan, Mahoney, &

Caranikas-Walker, 2010). Besides, the availability of mobile devices does not guarantee their use in education. Based on these reasons, we must first analyze students’ readiness for mobile learning (Corbeil

& Valdes-Corbeil, 2007; Keller, 2011). This, the theory explains, is where teachers need to remember that inputs to learning are crucial. Instructors therefore should ensure that learning materials are well-

(22)

22

organized and new concepts must be potentially meaningful to learners such that the new concept can be recallable (Ausubel, 1968).

As previously indicated, the construction of new meanings requires that learners seek to integrate new knowledge with existing relevant concepts and propositions in their cognitive structure. Cognitive structures, according to Garner (2007), are the basic mental processes people use to make sense of information. While concepts are defined as perceived regularities in events or objects, a combination of these concepts form statements, otherwise known as propositions. Thus, knowledge stored in our brains comprises networks of concepts and propositions (Novak, 2002). In addition, effective teaching reinforces positive transfer by actively identifying the relevant knowledge and strengths that students bring to a learning situation where they build on them (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). It is therefore gratifying to stress that the university where the research was carried out has a strong commitment to Information Communications Technology (ICT); as a result, students have some knowledge about the use of ICTs. This explains that supported by effective teaching, students will be capable of integrating whatever new things they learn with mobile technology, in combination with their relevant knowledge of the technology. The positive transfer gained, can be discussed by way of students’

perceptions of using mobile technology in higher education learning. Furthermore, collaborating with the mobile devices as technological aids, enhances the creative and problem-solving possibilities of students. That is, students’ current knowledge of mobile technology in union with being constantly connected with their fellow students through mobile devices may well promote their learning.

In buttressing the significance of the theory of cognitive learning, and therefore meaningful learning with its major influence on the world, there is no gainsaying the fact that invariably, major changes in various establishments are being compelled by world economic changes, thereby placing a premium on the capacity and worth of knowledge and new knowledge production. These changes require changes in school and university education that focus on the nature and power of meaningful learning (Novak, 2002). For the reasons adduced, the theory of cognitive learning makes it possible for teachers to provide new learning opportunities to students as well as students being able to identify some factors that might affect the successful use of mobile technology in higher education learning.

(23)

23 2.2 The TML Model

As a general approach that can be used to shape curricula, design instructional materials, and guide instructors’ work which does not only take place in the lecture rooms but equally in other settings, the TML model is a pedagogical model that exploits the use of mobile technologies in the teaching-studying- learning processes. The model is concerned with students’ learning processes together with their expected outcomes. This study therefore incorporates the TML model since the significant use of mobile technology is perceived as useful for learning, facilitates both teaching and meaningful learning, as well as enhances the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge and methodological skills (Hakkarainen &

Vapalahti, 2011).

The TML model is presented below in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1. TML model (Hakkarainen, 2009).

(24)

24

Hakkarainen, et al.’s (2007) pedagogical model for teaching and meaningful learning is based on the theory of cognitive learning by Ausubel (1963, 1968); Ausubel, et al. (1978) and the ideas of meaningful learning by Jonassen (1995). As maintained by the model, meaningful learning refers both to the student’s learning process and to the expected learning outcomes. These learning outcomes make reference to the ways of understanding the things students learn (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). In the model, meaningful learning is described through 17 process characteristics and expected outcomes including students’ domain-specific knowledge and skills together with transferable, generic knowledge and skills (Tynjälä, 2001). Thus, ‘transferable’, in this study, indicates students’ ability to extend what they have learned from one context to the other. In the TML model, there is a dashed two-way arrow indicating the cooperation of relationships between the components of the model. The model also has some pedagogical approaches like case-based teaching which focuses on teachers' problem solving, decision making, reflective practices and their own personalized theory about teaching and learning (Butler, Lee &

Tippins, 2006).

Meaningful learning gives prominence to the acquisition of new information by learners and their connections to previous experiences and knowledge in the formation of personal and unique understandings (Rendas, Fonseca, & Pinto, 2006; Viola, Giretti, & Leo, 2007). As expressed clearly, any pedagogically significant use of technology should enable learners to engage in meaningful learning (Jonassen, 1995). Therefore, students’ familiarity with mobile technology (i.e., laptop, smartphone and tablet computers) should ascertain the basis for learners becoming involved in meaningful learning at the higher education level.

Furthermore, meaningful learning occurs when learners are naturally active and involved in the mental social process (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2004). Through formal and informal communities of practice, learners are able to develop their skills and knowledge which they share with members with whom they learn and practise those skills with. In this study, students are provided the opportunity to share with the researcher their experiences of using mobile technology for learning in various learning situations. The development of ideas, skills and knowledge could be transferred and transmitted through reading and discussing other members’ online documents aside from being constantly connected with their peers through mobile technology.

Principally, in applying the TML model, all the 17 characteristics of meaningful learning processes need not be present at any point in time although they can be “intertwined, interdependent, interactive, partly

(25)

25

overlapping, and synergetic” (Ruokamo, et al., 2012, p. 377; Jonassen, 2000). This statement is proven in this study by the participation of students in both synchronous and asynchronous online discussions including the production of pictorial and audio-visual content with learners’ fellow mates.

Moreover, the scheme of meaningful learning in the TML model does not only provide a broad theoretical foundation for informed design of educational technologies, but also emphasizes the meaning of students’ emotional participation in learning (Ruokamo, et al., 2012). As pointed out by Soini (1999) emotional involvement is one essential element of good learning situations for students as it becomes prominent from “feelings of personal, emotional-connectedness to some subject” (p. 84). In the study, the demonstration of emotional involvement is significantly noticed with students’ acknowledgement of mobile technology contributing positively to their satisfaction with studying as well as helping them to achieve their personal learning goals. Indeed, emotions influence “students’ cognitive processes”, and also their “psychological and physical health” (Novak, 2002, p. 92). Likewise, it is known that emotion is vital in our education since it drives attention and then possibly leads to learning itself and memory (Ruokamo, et al., 2012).

Presumably, students experience rich dimensions of diversity of emotions in learning and achievement owing to many factors notably, educational and professional pursuits, social relations, and the allocation of many kinds of resources which are largely dependent on individual achievement (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz,

& Perry, 2002). This implies that learning and achievement are of great significance and that is why they are the vital sources of human emotions nowadays. In addition, these sources have been brought about by social emotions, self-referencing, and task-related disciplines (Scherer, Wallbott, & Summerfield, 1986). However, if the TML model’s process of characteristics of meaningful learning is able to help teachers with a better discernment of our emotional system and regulate it in the teaching and learning process, it will be a major step in the improvement of incorporating emotion comfortably into the curriculum and the classroom. As advanced, the emotions that students experience in academic settings play a central role in their motivation to learn, self-regulate, and achieve academically. (Pekrun, et al., 2002; Pekrun, 2009). In the study, students attested that mobile devices have been useful to them when critically evaluating and analysing information related to their field of study. What’s more, Ausubel et al. (1978) assert that the cooperative and emotionally-involving aspects of meaningful learning are capable of being analyzed. In view of this, it can be arguably stated that the TML model is a contemporary version of the Ausubel et al. (1978) point of view since it provides underlying support for analysing how

(26)

26

students perceive the use of mobile technology in higher education learning. Other process characteristics of the model also explain how students’ experiences of using mobile technology have improved their learning together with how new learning opportunities are made available to them, including some of the factors affecting the successful use of mobile technology at the higher education level.

2.3 The 17 Characteristics of Meaningful Learning

As Figure 1 indicates, a general review of the 17 characteristics of meaningful learning given by Hakkarainen, Saarelainen, and Ruokamo (2009) are the following:

1. Active – It is said that “Human learning is a naturally active, mental and social process” (Jonassen &

Strobel, 2006). The belief is that whatever learners involve themselves in may have some physical evidence of ways that they (the learners) particularly act in response to others and sometimes to certain situations. A detailed investigation and analysis of these activities that learners become involved in may help ascertain what they know. In other circumstances where physical evidence of conduct may be concealed from sight, the status quo should be studied with “invasive procedures such as think- alouds or teachbacks” (Jonassen & Strobel, 2006, p. 2). Thus by implication, being active suggests that learners are characterised by constant change, and the assumption of dynamic roles in their learning activities may be common.

According to Prince (2004), active learning is fundamentally any instructional method that engages students in the learning process. In actual fact, this type of learning “requires students to do meaningful learning activities and think about what they are doing” since the core elements of active learning are student activity and involvement in the learning process (p. 23). Additionally, learners are occupied with activities that promote good thinking abilities since students are not only encouraged to ask questions and acquire information, but also made to critically evaluate information as well as express new ideas and models of thinking (Ruokamo, Tella, Vahtivuori, Tuovinen, & Tissari, 2002). In the study, students have evaluated their own learning through learning journals, diaries and portfolios with the use of mobile technology. It is also stressed that in this contemporary era, simply knowing how to use tools and knowledge in a single field is not sufficient to remain competitive as an individual therefore, people must also learn to apply tools and knowledge in new fields and in different situations (Grabinger & Dunlap,

(27)

27

1995). In the study, students were involved in receiving instant feedback and advice from their instructors as well as their colleagues with the enablement of mobile technology.

2. Self-directed – In this approach, the learner is motivated to exercise personal responsibility and much independence with the decision of choosing what to learn and how to learn it (Garrison, 1997).

According to Knowles (1975), self-directed learning is a “basic human competence – the ability to learn on one’s own” (p. 17). Besides, it is a learning process that is extensive and occurs as part of day to day life of an adult. Aside from this learning process being methodically planned, it does not rely on a class room nor needs an instructor (Tough, 1967, 1971). Indeed, this research had respondents discussing the various degrees or levels at which mobile technology are used for study purposes outside lecture hours.

Self-directed has also been described as self-learning in which learners have the fundamental control to plan, identify, perform, and evaluate their own learning experiences (Brockett & Hiemstra,1991). In the study, students’ knowledge of mobile device applications has helped them to manage their time while studying.

3. Constructive – From the constructivist’s point of view on learning, the assumption is that “knowledge is individually constructed and socially co-constructed by learners based on their interactions in the world” (Jonassen, 1999, p. 1). Constructive learning therefore means learners gain new ideas into their relevant previous knowledge in a process of meaningful making but not of knowledge reception (Jonassen, 1995, 2002). For learners to meaningfully construct and reconstruct meanings, there must be the prerequisite of actively seeking to “integrate new knowledge with knowledge already in their cognitive structure” (Novak, 2002, p. 548). Thus, constructive is a meaningful learning process in which learners actively build a mental model of the system they are to learn (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996). This research has students discussing how significant mobile technology have improved their learning with the construction of mind maps, modelling, and other new ideas on an abstract or a theoretical level of learning.

In a similar circumstance, we can say constructive is discovery learning since the student discovers knowledge by way of constructing his or her own rules that conform with meaningful learning outcomes.

An example of a manipulation that can encourage and evoke a constructive activity is direct prompting (Chi, 2009). In the study, students’ experiences of using mobile technology to pick up pictures, videos and notes, as incidental ideas typically related to their studies, were considered.

(28)

28

4. Individual – Individuality means that learners have personal learning methods and strategies which suggest that students’ prior knowledge, conceptions, and interest always influence learning (Ruokamo et al., 2002). Indeed, for the most part, “it is the learner who must choose to learn meaningfully” (Hay,

Kehoe, Miquel, Hatzipanagos, Kinchin, Keevil, & Lygo ‐Baker, 200

the authors that “measures of student learning” are the true barometers of the quality of teaching through technology (Hay, et al., 2008, p. 1037).

A thought provoking analogy is drawn when the idea of taking the chance to gain advantage from learners’ individuality is compared to someone looking at a learning style or strategy through a kaleidoscope. The revealment involves seeing “the separate colours and patterns of individual experience” being organized into a “coherent picture of group experience” through all the dynamic moulds that conform to meaningful learning outcomes (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). Moreover, when we take learning communities which refer to groups of people who share basic interests in learning and sharing knowledge, one realization is the common goal of advancing collective knowledge through the support of individual knowledge (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999). One example of this support is the enablement of students and faculty to be involved in constructive interactions. The belief in this particular context suggests that student learning can be enhanced by learning communities (Tinto, 1997; Synder, 2009). In this study, students discussed how mobile technology have been useful to them when solving studying-related problems individually.

5. Collaborative – By collaborative learning, it refers to ways that information is presented to students.

Students at various performance levels form small groups all gear towards the achievement of a common purpose. In these groupings, students are concerned with one another’s learning as well as their own (Gokhale, 1995). By this, the success of a member producing an intended result helps the other team members to be equally effective. Collaboration among learners also occurs throughout the learning process. In reality, collaboration helps in the development, testing, and evaluation of different beliefs and hypotheses within learning contexts (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995).

According to some intellectuals of collaborative learning, besides the fact that the effective exchange of ideas within small teams increases interest in teamwork, it promotes critical thinking as well. For example, there is persuasive evidence that active engagement of teamwork by students achieve higher levels of thought and they also remember information longer than students who work reservedly as individuals (Johnson & Johnson, 1986). Thus, learners also have the opportunity of taking responsibility

(29)

29

for their own learning, thereby becoming analytical (Totten, Sills, Digby, & Russ, 1991). Indeed, working jointly as a team makes it possible for students to have the chance to be involved in discussions. In the study, students have been participating in discussions via video conferencing or video calls as well as working face-to-face with their fellow mates on a common written document which have collaboratively promoted their learning.

Last but not least, technological advances nowadays have greatly influenced work ethics hence, the increased emphasis on teamwork within the work institutions. Since university students are preparing to enter the job markets, they need to be able to think creatively, become problem solvers, as well as good decision makers. These could be achieved through teamwork. In fact, one of the primary goals of technology education is to develop and enhance critical-thinking skills by engaging in collaborative learning (Gokhale, 1995).

6. Co-operative – It is said that “Extraordinary achievement comes from a cooperative group, not from the individualistic or competitive efforts of an isolated individual” (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, p. 67).

With a cooperative learning group, students team up with the fulfilment of shared goals. Beyond just discussing tasks with one another, members in the team ensure the provision of assistance to each and every member making certain that the said task is well comprehended as well.

Secondly, since in the lecture room it takes a cooperative effort, students give support to one another and get actively involved in all the learning activities. Making sure that each member is contributing and learning, individual performance is monitored along the line. In this situation, the result, according to Johnson and Johnson (1999), is that “the group is more than a sum of its parts, and all students perform higher academically than they would if they worked alone” (p. 68).

Further to that, cooperative learning is seen to be a student-centred, instructor-facilitated didactic strategy where small groups of students take charge of their own learning as well as all group members. With the aim of acquiring and practising the elements of a subject matter to complete a task or achieve goals, students interact with one another (Li & Lam, 2013). Also adding is the assertion that one critical element of cooperative learning is group team work and team goals (Slavin, 1996). This study involved the promotion of learning with the consideration of students’ co-operation in the production of audio-visual content with mobile technology.

(30)

30

7. Conversational – Conversational learning is a dialogue. That is, it is a process of internal and social negotiation (Jonassen, 1995, 2002). For learning to be effective, there must be the action of constructing an understanding that relates new experiences to existing knowledge. Most significant to this action is conversation with teachers, with other learners including ourselves, as well as with the world in its entirety. As learners conduct experiments and explorations and interpret the results, they become empowered when they are in charge of the process thus, “actively pursuing knowledge rather than passively” (Sharples, 2002, p. 506). In conversational learning, it is important that individuals and groups formulate plans such as: reflecting on what is known, what needs to be performed, what needs to be ascertained; how capable the various plans can work successfully, as well as their potential viability, before solving any situated problems (Jonassen, et al., 1995).

Furthermore, rather than looking at conversation from the point of view of exchanging of messages through a still and transparent medium, the concept of conversation has been reanalyzed as consisting of programme sharing and linguistic interaction within a widespread medium. So from a communication perspective, the mediums are active computing systems within which people and intelligent systems converse (Pask, 1975). Central to these learning conversations is the need to express one’s feelings or thoughts, in words or actions for better understanding. By virtue of having the competence of participating in a productive conversation, all parties need access to a common external representation of the content that allows them to identify and debate topics (Sharples, 2002). We must therefore not lose sight of the fact that conversation is an essential part of the rneaning-making process since knowledge, for most scholars, is language mediated (Jonassen, et al., 1995). In the study, students discussed scheduling meetings with either their fellow students or with their instructors as well as how mobile devices have enabled them to receive instant feedback from them.

8. Contextual – This refers to a system of instruction which is based on the philosophy that students learn when meanings are discerned in an educational material and in works assigned them by their teachers when they can link new information with previous knowledge together with their own experience (Johnson, 2002). It is also argued that contextual learning refers to “learning tasks that are situated in meaningful, real world tasks or problem-based learning environment” (Ruokamo et al., 2012, p. 379).

Again, contextual learning is based on the premise that meaning emerges from the relationship between context and content (Garrison, 1992). By context, it includes features of the actual world setting in which

Students' perceptions of using mobile technology in higher education

DEDICATION

CONTENTS